Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters "Lawyer" load data

Isn't part of the issue now, that average brass is a little thicker now than it was 40-50 years ago, reducing case capacity?

Dad had a .22 Varminter (a .22-250 with slightly different shoulder angle) built in the early 60's, when it was still a wildcat. He mostly used PO Ackley's data, which was from the 1950's, and used necked down .250 Savage brass.

About the time I started handloading, my brother & I stumbled across the data (maybe even some of his old cases) compared it to new data at that time, and convinced Dad if he kept using 3031, he really, really needed to drop the charges at least 10%

+1.

Very helpful knowing all that goes into this stuff, and having one less thing to dislike lawyers for leaves no shortage .

Thanks John!

John is now part of the conspiracy


Seriously this is interesting, thanks for posting it.

I have one of those metal 50 lb containers although the powder was used up years ago. When that was used up,I started buying the H4831 in 8lb jugs and have never noticed any difference in it vs the old stuff. Of course you can vary 4831 with several grains in weight and not see any significant difference in 30-06 class cases.

I have been reloading since about 1965, that is just shy of 50 years. I found out early that the most accurate loads were usually a few grains under maximum book loads, with the exception of two 7 mags that worked best with max loads. That was with an old Lyman manual 1964 era. To date, I still have all my fingers, eyes and other extremities.

Over the years I have acquired more than a few manuals and I check them all to see what is going on with any new chambering I acquire. However, that has been few and far between the last 15 years or so and I don't use a lot of different powders in my rifles, H4831, H4350, H4895, 4064, and 3031.I haven't even tried any of the new powders on the market as the ones I use work.

If there are any lawyering down loads, it never affected me. It's those guys who have to push their loads to get the last 50FPS that are the ones that get in trouble anyway.

MD, I appreciate this thread and respect your thoughts on the matter but I would like to ask you opinion on how this could pertain to old cartridges? Namely the 6.5x55 and 7x57, which I think all of us can agree, are loaded to rather anemic levels buy US manufactures as well as available handloader data which is also a little lackluster.

I understand the older military rifles that were chambered for these rounds have shown that max power loads are potentially dangerous... Could this be proof of the lawyering in effect?

If not, why are they loaded to such low levels? Why is the max load data easily and safely surpassed in modern rifles?

Does anyone know of any real-life lawsuits against publishers of load data?

I'm not sure that merely reducing suggested 'maximum' loads to lower pressures to some arbitrary lower level would, by itself, have much effect in reducing tort liability, all else remaining the same.

If for example, a publisher was developing load data in an allegedly "negligent" manner, reducing the max suggested loads to some lower pressure level, by itself, probably wouldn't shield the publisher from any possible liability if the data were still being developed in a "negligent" manner, even though at a lower pressure level. Things can still go wrong, even at reduced pressure levels.

What we're considering here is the intersection of intellectual property law, tort law, consumer product safety law. I'm not a litigator, but my gut instinct tells me that a 'tort shark' representing a plaintiff who had some claim related to a handloading accident would probably sue the manufacturer(s) of the gun, the components, or the reloading tools, maybe all three, rather than the load data publisher. Of course, a pLaintiff may include the publisher just to be safe, even though he had no real case against him.
Suing the publisher of the load data would necessarily raise questions about how the Plaintiff had used the load data in question, and a good defense lawyer would be asking hard questions of the Plaintiff handloader about his handloading practies and technique, particularly in states that follow the rule of Contributory negligence.

But I'm just speculating as I'm not familiar with any actual cases in which publishers of load data have been sued for accidents consequent to the use of their data.

Yup. It was filed by a good friend of my plumber's brother-in-law's next door neighbor's doctor. At least I think that's what he said. My wife was laughing so hard at his plumber's crack that I couldn't hear very well.

But I'm 90% sure of it.

Even a good lawyer driven conspiracy theory ain't sacred no more.

Next thing you know you will be telling us that Santa Claus doesn't really have flying reindeer and Bigfoot is just Ingwe running around outside before he shaves.

Any chance that improved measurements - as compared to CUP - have caught more high pressure spikes? CUP measurements maybe being closer to an average pressure measurement for each shot measured.

The published data using CUP would then be for an average measurement under the SAAMI ceiling. There would be little or no allowance for spikes that were never measured?.

Today's published data seems to be based on statistical process control limits. That is the process controlled data assumes - with no particular justification I've ever seen published - a standardized Gaussian distribution for pressures. So more recent data keeps not just the average but most predicted pressure spikes (using the statistical process control Gaussian assumptions for better or worse? Or using measurements?) under the SAAMI limits? As they should given the propensity of firearms that have been fired too many times with over pressure loads to eventually be dangerous with purely SAAMI loads.

haverluk,

American data for the 6.5x55 and 7x57 is all over the place, and has been for a long time, because throat length and action strength are all over the place. That was true in the 1960's when I started handloading and still true today. In fact some of today's data is right up there at 60,000+ psi ("for use in modern rifles only") and some way down there for older rifles.

Clark,

There are three SAAMI pressure "limits" for rifle cartridges: maximum average pressure (which all that's listed in most public loading info, and not on all), maximum probable lot mean, and maximum probable sample mean. There's a minimum number of shots required with any load, and all sorts of other protocols for the actual testing.

But you also have to understand that while SAAMI is a quasi-governmental organization, membership is also voluntary. It's designed to produce ammo that will function safely in every firearm produced by members--and firearms that will work with ammo from all members. When standards are set they do consider older firearms that may have been fired a LOT, with variable ammo--and they have since the organization was formed (in 1928, as I recall).

My brother's a lawyer and he don't know schitt about reloading.

I have to do it all for him.


Just saying.

It is not just the reloading companies that vary, I have chronograhed a lot of loads I have seen on here (after working up) and I can never get those either.

I seem to have a knack for buying rifles with over sized chambers as many recommended loads I see are indoor mouse loads in my rifles with 200fps less more common than not.

In the end, I believe nothing and work up my own. As long as I am staying true to the established velocity ranges per bullet and cartridge and there is absolutely no "excess" pressure signs, that's all anyone can do as a handloader.

Accuracy is more important than velocity which is rarely not enough for the job.

I ran into this recently while looking for loads for my 35 Whelen with 275gr bullets.

I looked in my Nosler #7 manual - no data for 275s, but listed 53.0 of RL-15 with a 250 gr Partition

For comparison, I looked at the 9.3x62 with 286gr Partition - 58.5 of RL-15.

So here's the question - is the 35 Whelen data "slow" (lower pressure) or is the 9.3 data "fast" (higher pressure)? Granted, these are 2 different cartridges, but they are very similar in case capacity. I usually see lower powder charges with heavier bullets, but this one puzzled me.

The two cartridges are similar but they're not the same, because of the smaller .35 bore. In fact, .35 Whelen data is higher pressure than 9.3x62 data, because the CIP ("European SAAMI") pressure for the 9.3x62 is lower.

Just looked at the SAAMI site, and the Whelen's pressure limit is 62K. No data for the 9.3, guess I'll need to look at the CIP specs....

Wish Nosler printed their pressure measurements....

MD - as a general rule, with case capacity being almost the same, will the bigger bore show less pressure with the same powder charge? I know there are lots a variables, just looking for some guidence.

Exactly. Plus the 9.3x62 also has a few grains more powder room than the .35 Whelen.

Another example would be the .280 Remington and .30-06. Case capacity is almost exactly the same, as is SAAMI maximum average pressure at 60,000 psi. But with IMR4350, Nosler lists the maximum charge with 150-gain bullets in the .280 as 51.5 grains, while in the .30-06 with IMR4350 and 150's it's 59.0 grains.

I've seen references to these two cartridges regarding pressure spikes, or whatever verbage one would like to use, many times over the years. So what is it about those two cases that make them prone to such swings in pressure?

Interesting thread, BTW.

Some of my older manuals mention using CHE to determine pressure levels. WAFJ. Now primer pocket expansion is another story.

Lay out the Lyman, Speer, Sierra, Nosler, and Hornady loading manuals, look at the minimum and max charge for any cartridge with the same weight bullet in each...madness.

Also, when temps drop at or below -25*F, pressures can spike...not what you would think.